Date: Thursday, June 11, 2026

Time: 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.

Type of Meeting: Hybrid

Members Present: 13

Public Attendees: 51

DHCS Staff Presenters: Michelle Baass, Director; Tisha Montiero, Branch Chief, Office of Strategic Partnerships; Rebecca Sterling, Assistant Deputy Director, Office of Strategic Partnerships; Ivan Bhardwaj, Chief, Medi-Cal Behavioral Health Policy Division

Additional Information: Please refer to the PowerPoint presentation used during the meeting for additional context and details. 

Member Attendance: 

• Nancy Netherland; Present; In Person
• Michael Weiss, M.D.; Present; Virtual
• Ellen Beck, M.D.; Not Present
• Elizabeth Stanley Salazar; Present; In Person
• Diana Vega; Present; Virtual
• Jeff Ribordy, MD, MPH, FAAP; Present; In Person
• Karen Lauterbach; Present; In Person
• Kenneth Hempstead, M.D.; In Person
• William Arroyo, M.D.; Present; In Person
• Ron DiLuigi; Not Present
• Lesley Latham, D.D.S., MS; Present; Virtual
• Alison Beier; Present; Virtual
• Jovan Salama Jacobs, Ed.D; Present; In Person
• Kelly Motadel, M.D.; Present; In Person
• Jan A. Schumann; Present; Virtual

Agenda:

Time	Content
10:00 – 10:10	Welcome, Opening Comments, Roll Call, and Agenda
10:10 – 11:00	Director’s Update
11:00 – 11:45	Scaling Evidence-Based Practices and Community-Defined Evidence Practices (EBP/CDEP) Grant Program
11:45 – 12:30	BrightLife Kids and Soluna Impact Report and Updates
12:30 – 1:00	Break
1:00 – 1:45	BH-CONNECT: Children and Youth Policy Updates and Opportunities
1:45 – 1:55	Public Comment
1:55 – 2:00	Final Comments and Adjourn

Welcome and Introductions

Type of Action: Action

• Recommendation: Review and approve the March 12, 2026, meeting minutes.
• Presenter: Nancy Netherland, Chair, welcomed meeting participants and read the legislative charge for the advisory panel.

Materials/Attachments: MCHAP Meeting Minutes – March 12, 2026

Action: Approve the minutes from March 12, 2026

• Aye: 13 (Netherland, Weiss, Hempstead, Arroyo, Latham, Lauterbach, Jacobs, Motadel, Schumann, Salazar, Vega, Beier, Ribordy)
• Didn’t Vote: 0
• Members Absent: 2 (DiLuigi, Beck)
• Abstentions: 0

Motion Outcome: Passed

Director’s Update

Type of Action: Information

Presenter: Michelle Baass, Director

Discussion Topics:

• The Director provided an overview of the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 budget, highlighting $223.2 billion in total funds for DHCS and major policy issues shaping Department priorities. The Director emphasized continued commitment to equitable access to quality health care, noting key impacts of federal H.R. 1, including new work and community engagement requirements, reduced retroactive Medi-Cal timeframes, immigrant eligibility changes, and needed operational alignment across state and county partners. The Director also outlined significant budget proposals, such as adjustments to Medi-Cal premiums, reinstatement of the asset test, modifications to Enhanced Care Management (ECM) and Community Supports, and planned caps on Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) rates. Additional updates included continuation of the Managed Care Organization Tax, DHCS’ extensive stakeholder engagement strategy for H.R. 1 implementation, and the transition of members with unsatisfactory immigration status to fee-for-service Medi-Cal.
• Members raised concerns about the transition to fee‑for‑service, noting that years of emphasis on managed care have left very few providers willing to see fee‑for‑service Medi-Cal patients. They shared that finding fee‑for‑service providers, especially in large counties, such as Los Angeles, can be extremely difficult and asked how DHCS is evaluating provider availability to ensure members can still access care. DHCS explained that fee‑for‑service does not operate through a traditional contracted network, but most managed care providers are already enrolled through the Provider Application and Validation for Enrollment (PAVE) system, meaning they are technically able to serve fee‑for‑service members. However, DHCS acknowledged that actual provider willingness varies and is a key focus of current outreach and assessment efforts. DHCS also noted that Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) may experience the transition differently because their reimbursement structure is similar across delivery systems. Members emphasized ongoing challenges securing specialty care for fee‑for‑service patients and questioned whether providers are simply opting not to participate despite being enrolled. DHCS reiterated that PAVE enrollment provides visibility into credentialed providers and that only a small number of Medi-Cal managed care plans maintain separate credentialing processes. Another member raised concerns about the loss of FQHC wraparound payments for this population, noting the financial strain many clinics already face. DHCS confirmed that changes to wraparound payments were adopted as part of the 2025 budget and take effect in July. Members urged DHCS to closely monitor the transition, expressing worries that patients may face care disruptions if providers decline to serve fee‑for‑service members. DHCS acknowledged the magnitude and speed of the required transition and explained that federal rules necessitate compliance. California draws down approximately $6 billion annually in federal funding for emergency services for individuals with unsatisfactory immigration status, and the state does not have sufficient General Fund resources to replace that amount. Given this context, DHCS stated that it is focused on establishing the minimum required infrastructure for January implementation and will continue refining the system over time.
• A member asked about care management responsibilities under the transition to fee‑for‑service, noting that many children currently receive intensive case management through managed care, including those enrolled in the California Children’s Services (CCS) program. The member expressed concern about how care coordination will continue for these children once they move to fee‑for‑service. DHCS explained that for Whole Child Model counties, the May Revision includes additional funding to support counties in resuming care management responsibilities previously handled through managed care. Beyond CCS-specific functions, DHCS described broader care coordination options available in fee‑for‑service, including the Community Health Worker benefit, which can support navigation and coordination needs, and a planned statewide nurse line intended to offer additional assistance starting in January 2027. The member reiterated concerns about children who currently receive strong, consistent case management who may “drop off” during the transition. The member urged DHCS to remain attentive to these risks and offered partnership in supporting a thoughtful transition process.
• A member asked whether the panel should formally communicate its concerns to the Legislature, noting significant worries about proposals in the May Revision, particularly the proposal to redirect a portion of Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) funding to the state General Fund. The member stated that mental health providers believe this change conflicts with the intent of the BHSA and asked whether the administration plans to restore the redirected funds in the future. DHCS requested clarification about the “30 percent” figure referenced and explained that the proposal does not shift 30 percent of all BHSA funding. Instead, it affects only the 10 percent state administrative portion—consisting of allocations for population‑based prevention, workforce, and other state-level administrative activities. DHCS emphasized that no local BHSA provider dollars are affected and that the administration believes the proposed uses are permissible under Proposition 1. The member noted that mental health providers statewide appear to believe the proposal is much broader and asked that DHCS provide clearer communication. DHCS reiterated that the proposal applies only to state-level administrative funds and not to the entire BHSA funding structure. When the member asked whether the state intends to repay the redirected funds, DHCS explained that these are state-level dollars designated for state departments and, therefore, no repayment is planned. DHCS added that the proposed uses remain aligned with BHSA’s targeted populations. The member then raised concerns about proposed changes to ECM, noting that ECM is valuable and still reaching intended populations. DHCS responded that ECM utilization continues to grow, but that many cases involve only one member contact, which does not reflect the intended model of three in‑person engagements per month for individuals with complex needs. DHCS explained that the proposed changes aim to ensure fidelity to ECM’s original design so that meaningful outcomes can be achieved and maintained. The member expressed concern that youth who may benefit from ECM could be less willing to participate if face‑to‑face engagement requirements increase.
• A member said that while many aspects of the transition to fee‑for‑service are outside of DHCS’ control, there are areas within the Department’s authority that could help reduce barriers for providers, especially smaller clinics. The member described challenges experienced during the recent three‑year DHCS inspection process, noting that shifting requirements, such as rules for storing sanitizing wipes that led to costly modifications, create burdens that do not meaningfully improve patient care. The member encouraged DHCS to review and streamline requirements wherever possible, especially given the limited number of providers available in the community. DHCS responded that they appreciate the feedback and noted that, over the past year, DHCS has worked with Medi-Cal managed care plans and provider associations to identify duplicative administrative requirements and reporting burdens. DHCS stated that some improvements have already been made and agreed that ongoing efforts to streamline processes are important, particularly when programs are facing cuts and efficiencies are needed.
• A member encouraged DHCS to incorporate direct input from families and youth into evaluations of ECM, noting that current assessments focus on providers, counties, and utilization rather than user experience. They shared that families often find the grievance process unclear and difficult to navigate, and it limits meaningful feedback about what is and is not working. The member also raised concerns about the proposed $2,000 to $3,000 asset limit, explaining that families in high‑cost areas would be unable to save even one month of rent while maintaining Medi-Cal coverage. Additionally, the member expressed concern about shifting the cost of mobile crisis services to counties, noting that many counties cannot absorb this responsibility and that mobile crisis teams are essential for safely supporting youth, particularly youth of color and youth with disabilities, during crises. Another member agreed these issues should be elevated to the Legislature, and the chairperson confirmed that the panel has precedent for submitting formal letters and would begin the process to move this forward.
• A member asked why the May Revision proposes eliminating the adult acupuncture benefit and wondered why chiropractic services were not also considered, suggesting that if the goal is to remove non‑evidence‑based services, similar logic could apply to both benefits. DHCS explained that certain federal requirements, including the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) mandate for individuals under age 21, as well as other federal qualification provisions, limit how benefits can be changed, and the acupuncture proposal includes specific population exemptions. Another member clarified that EPSDT applies only to youth under age 21 and asked how that relates to adult acupuncture. DHCS confirmed this and added that both the Senate and Assembly have already rejected the proposal. DHCS then provided context on the budget process, noting that each legislative house has adopted its own budget, a two‑party agreement is expected shortly, and final three‑party negotiations to finalize the state budget will happen before July 1.
• A member asked DHCS to engage youth directly in its advisory and workgroup efforts, noting that topics related to H.R. 1 and immigration would benefit from youth perspectives gathered outside school hours; the member observed that current committees include parents and some young adults, but lack a dedicated youth group and urged DHCS to involve youth to ensure services are meaningful and responsive. DHCS replied that it does not have a youth‑only workgroup for H.R. 1 implementation and cited current bandwidth constraints as the Department focuses on required system and county eligibility changes ahead of January, but agreed to consider youth engagement in future iterations. Another member suggested leveraging existing local youth advisory boards, which are active but unfamiliar with redeterminations and ECM, and proposed intentionally cascading relevant information through counties and agencies that oversee youth services. DHCS recommended connecting those local boards to the Coverage Ambassadors program, which provides webinars, toolkits, and materials for sharing H.R. 1 information with communities, and committed to following up with sign‑up details so the panel can help route youth groups to those resources.
• A member asked where behavioral health specialty plans, such as county Specialty Mental Health Services and Drug Medi‑Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC‑ODS) plans, fit within DHCS’ H.R. 1 workgroup structure, noting they are not traditional managed care plans and seeking clarity on their role. DHCS explained that these plans participate in the broader H.R. 1 implementation stakeholder workgroup, and that managed care plans play a more prominent role because of their direct involvement in redeterminations and disenrollment processes. The member then shared that counties and providers are raising many questions and need clear, accurate information to prevent misinformation within the mental health and substance use disorder systems. DHCS responded that its H.R. 1 implementation plan includes relevant details and that additional refinements are underway, including work related to diagnostic codes that will determine exemptions. DHCS noted that individuals receiving specialty mental health or DMC services will be exempt from work requirements. The member acknowledged this, but stated that stakeholders are seeking clarity on exactly which diagnostic codes will be used, noting that many questions remain.
• A member said they were surprised by recent federal work requirement guidance, noting it appears to impose a significant administrative burden on providers by requiring them to certify exemptions rather than relying primarily on diagnostic codes. The member emphasized that clinics already face substantial administrative workloads and stressed the importance of ensuring vulnerable patients do not lose benefits because of complicated paperwork or unclear processes. They asked whether the Medi-Cal Voices and Vision Council or another workgroup would be the appropriate venue to raise these concerns and urged DHCS to incorporate provider perspectives as the state responds to the federal rules. DHCS replied that the H.R. 1 Implementation Stakeholder Workgroup is the forum for these discussions, but noted DHCS is still analyzing the federal guidance and cannot yet specify roles or processes. When asked when more details would become public, DHCS stated that updated information is expected later in the summer, with public comment due to CMS at the end of July.
• A member said they were impressed by the breadth of DHCS’ advisory and workgroups and emphasized the importance of continuing to elevate advocacy for behavioral health and substance use disorder communities in H.R. 1 implementation. They encouraged DHCS to proactively reach out to advocates and noted that recent federal guidance differed from expectations, especially regarding self‑attestation, creating uncertainty about how requirements will ultimately roll out. DHCS acknowledged the need for clarity and added that children, parents, and caretaker relatives are generally exempt from work and community engagement requirements, though some details are still being developed. The member raised concerns about youth with special health needs transitioning into adulthood without formal disability documentation, and DHCS responded that Regional Center clients will be exempt and that DHCS is using available data to exempt as many individuals as possible. The member also described positive experiences with youth participation in system‑testing efforts, such as the California State Automated Welfare System (CalSAWS) and text‑messaging pilots, and praised DHCS’ partnership in ensuring young adults are included. They highlighted the usefulness of Coverage Ambassador materials, which are consumer‑tested, available in many threshold languages, and being shared broadly through Family Voices, family resource centers, and youth groups. Another member added appreciation for DHCS’ outreach to Family Empowerment Centers. The member concluded by expressing enthusiasm for continued collaboration on these materials to ensure they remain accessible and responsive to diverse communities.
• A member asked how DHCS plans to track the impact of federal work requirements, noting that the intent behind the policy seems designed to reduce costs and will likely result in vulnerable populations losing coverage and access to services. The member emphasized the importance of understanding not only what the state continues to do, but who “falls off,” including those disengaged from health care, care management, and other supports built over recent years, and asked how DHCS plans to monitor these outcomes for the Legislature. DHCS responded that it plans to create a public dashboard that will track enrollment discontinuance reasons and help illustrate the broader effects of the policy.

Scaling Evidence-Based Practices and Community-Defined Evidence Practices (EBP/CDEP) Grant Program

Type of Action: Information

Presenter: Tisha Montiero, Branch Chief, Office of Strategic Partnerships

Discussion Topics:

• DHCS presented updates on the statewide EBP/CDEP Grant Program, which supports the expansion of evidence‑based and community‑defined behavioral health practices across five priority areas, including parent and caregiver support, trauma‑informed care, early childhood wraparound services, youth‑driven programs, and early intervention. The program has broadened access to behavioral health services through hundreds of active grants, wide county participation, and extensive workforce training efforts. DHCS highlighted progress described in the interim public report, noting growing reach into communities, increased delivery of behavioral health interventions, and strengthened capacity-building across providers statewide. The presentation also introduced the EBP/CDEP Resource Guide, designed to help providers understand Medi‑Cal reimbursement pathways and align practice components with sustainable funding sources, supporting long‑term integration of these models without establishing new policy.
• A member said the new EBP/CDEP resource guide is a valuable tool and asked whether DHCS has encountered evidence‑based or community‑defined practices that include components not reimbursable under Medi-Cal, and how DHCS is making sure those models can still be funded. DHCS explained that the guide identifies Medi-Cal‑reimbursable practices and outlines how certain models can be supported through other pathways, noting that some practices are not reimbursable as full models, but can be “cross-walked” to existing Medi-Cal services. The member offered Nurse Family Partnership as an example of a strong model with historically inconsistent funding approaches across counties. DHCS acknowledged the example and noted that BHSA early intervention dollars, 51% of which must support children, can help cover non‑Medicaid‑eligible components. The member then asked whether BH‑CONNECT still intends to offer bundled reimbursement for certain youth EBPs. DHCS confirmed that bundled payment is part of the BH‑CONNECT work and is also reflected in the resource guide. The member said they hope reimbursement rates will be sufficient for providers to sustain these practices.
• A member asked how prevention work within the substance use disorder (SUD) system intersects with the EBP/CDEP effort, noting that counties currently administer most SUD prevention funding and wondering whether it has been incorporated or remains separate. DHCS explained that SUD prevention is locally administered, but will be part of broader planning under BHSA’s Integrated Plan requirements. The member expressed appreciation for the resource guide’s emphasis on standardization and hoped counties would begin uplifting their systems to those standards. DHCS noted that the guide also supports Medi-Cal managed care plans by breaking down bundled programs, clarifying fidelity requirements, and identifying billable components or alternative funding sources to ensure long‑term sustainability. The member added that one major accomplishment of this work has been improved workforce training and clearer practice standards for youth‑serving providers, and encouraged efforts to extend those gains into the larger SUD prevention system.
• A member asked how DHCS is addressing the transition from pediatric to adult behavioral health services, noting that the shift is already complex for youth who need ongoing support. DHCS explained that the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (CYBHI) Grant Program was intentionally designed to serve ages 0-25, including transition‑age youth, and to strengthen early intervention in ways that complement adult systems of care. The member remarked that transitioning to adult services remains challenging and did not expect a full solution during the meeting. DHCS acknowledged the concern, calling it a fair and ongoing challenge, and reiterated that the program’s design aims to support earlier intervention and the needs of transition‑age youth.

BrightLife Kids and Soluna Impact Report and Updates

Type of Action: Information

Presenter: Rebecca Sterling, Assistant Deputy Director, Office of Strategic Partnerships

Discussion Topics:

• DHCS provided an update on BrightLife Kids and Soluna, two statewide digital behavioral health platforms designed to offer free coaching, tools, and peer support for children, youth, and families. The presentation emphasized continued growth in access across all 58 counties, strong user engagement, and consistently high satisfaction with coaching services. DHCS highlighted improvements in emotional and behavioral outcomes for children and youth, increased use of culturally responsive and multilingual supports, and continued expansion of partnerships that connect families to community-based resources. The update also included findings from independent research showing sustained reductions in distress among Soluna users, reinforcing both platforms’ role in advancing early intervention and low‑barrier mental health support.
• A member asked about BrightLife Kids and Soluna’s experience referring children and youth to higher‑acuity levels of care, noting that referrals could lead to mild‑to‑moderate managed care, specialty mental health, or DMC‑ODS for SUD, and wanted to know whether those systems respond consistently or present barriers. DHCS said they did not have detailed data on referral outcomes but explained that both platforms use an affiliate network of providers who understand the programs, the levels of care they offer, and have agreed to accept direct referrals, allowing for warm handoffs when users need more intensive services. The member requested more information on how providers can participate in the affiliate network.
• A member reflected on how quickly technology has advanced since BrightLife Kids and Soluna were first introduced and noted that youth increasingly seek immediate mental health support, including through AI chatbots. They asked how DHCS is considering youth preferences and planning for newer technologies as systems evolve. DHCS explained that Soluna gathers direct input from teens and young adults through its Ambassadors Group, and that youth consistently express a preference for real‑time human interaction, either through near‑instant drop‑in coaching or by selecting coaches who reflect their identity. The member added that many youth use AI chatbots privately, and there is a need for multiple accessible options. DHCS agreed that different pathways will be needed to reach diverse users and noted that future behavioral health support will likely combine human‑based services with various digital tools.
• A member asked whether BrightLife Kids’ family support includes assistance for parents with limited literacy or technological skills, noting that many Medi-Cal families struggle to understand information or navigate digital platforms. They also asked whether youth using Soluna can work with the same coach over time. DHCS explained that both BrightLife Kids and Soluna offer member support services, including a phone line that can walk families through registration, scheduling, and platform navigation, and that appointments can be made entirely through that line, if preferred. When the member asked how families experiencing homelessness are reached and whether devices or Wi‑Fi are provided, DHCS said both programs conduct outreach through a large network of community partners, including shelters, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, counties, and community-based organizations, and that engagement staff can assist families in person with registration, though the programs do not currently provide devices. DHCS noted that families can use resources, such as libraries and other community hubs, for internet access. DHCS also clarified that youth and parents can either continue with the same coach for future sessions or switch to a different coach at any time based on their preference.
• A member thanked DHCS for the presentation and asked whether BrightLife Kids offers language support beyond English and Spanish, noting that many Medi-Cal families have literacy or technology barriers. They also asked how secure program funding is and what steps DHCS plans to take to expand access to underserved communities. DHCS explained that both BrightLife Kids and Soluna have bilingual English and Spanish coaches and can provide interpretation for all other Medi-Cal threshold languages through translation services. DHCS added that funding for the programs is included in the Governor’s May Revision for 2026-27, although budget negotiations are ongoing and some legislative proposals include reductions. Despite this uncertainty, DHCS stated that the programs are continuing full implementation, expanding community partnerships, growing the affiliate network, and increasing outreach to families who may not yet be aware of the services. DHCS also noted ongoing development of additional program content, including resources tailored for fathers of young children.
• A member thanked DHCS for the update and noted that students increasingly need mental health support beyond school system, suggesting finding way to have community schools could provide quiet spaces, computers, and Wi‑Fi so students can access BrightLife Kids and Soluna. The member asked how many referrals come from schools and whether students prefer texting or video sessions. DHCS said the programs have partnerships with school districts, county offices of education, and individual school sites, and teams regularly participate in school events to raise awareness, but they did not have a specific count of school‑generated referrals. DHCS added that engagement often mixes modalities, with coaching sessions by video or phone followed by chat, and shared that DHCS recently issued a joint letter with the state superintendent to local education agencies to promote these free resources and encourage school‑based use.
• A member asked how much input DHCS has in shaping BrightLife Kids and Soluna, noting that both platforms are proprietary and wondering whether DHCS can suggest changes, especially given new stressors facing families, including immigration‑related concerns. DHCS explained that it maintains full oversight of both programs, meets regularly with contracted partners to ensure usability and accessibility, and can request modifications. DHCS added that neither platform requires insurance, immigration status, or referrals, and users are never asked to disclose immigration information. The member stated that this is an important opportunity to consider emerging family stressors that were not as prominent when the programs were first developed.
• A member asked how schools refer students to BrightLife Kids and Soluna and whether parental consent is required. DHCS explained that no formal referral process is needed and that schools simply share the information, walk students or families through registration, or use QR codes or links. BrightLife Kids requires parent or caregiver consent because it is designed for children under age 12, and parents register and manage the account. Soluna allows teens and young adults ages 13 and older to self‑register and consent independently under California minor consent rules. The member then asked whether these services can be used in place of educationally-related mental health services provided through schools. DHCS clarified that the programs are meant to complement school‑based services, not replace them. When asked if they could be added to an Individualized Education Program (IEP), DHCS explained that the platforms operate outside formal systems, such as Medi‑Cal, commercial insurance, IEPs, and school‑based services. They are intended to be optional tools that families and youth can use independently.
• A member asked whether DHCS has information on how many youth with reading disabilities are accessing Soluna and whether accommodations exist. DHCS said they did not have that data available and would need to follow up. Another member noted that phone accessibility tools, such as voice‑to‑text, could offer support and asked whether Soluna collects information about disabilities during intake. DHCS explained that BrightLife Kids includes a question about relevant diagnoses or disabilities and that they would need to verify whether similar information is collected in Soluna’s onboarding process.

BH-CONNECT: Children and Youth Policy Updates and Opportunities

Type of Action: Information

Presenter: Ivan Bhardwaj, Chief, Medi-Cal Behavioral Health Policy Division

Discussion Topics:

• DHCS provided an update on BH-CONNECT, a statewide initiative aimed at improving behavioral health care for children and youth. The presentation highlighted new activity funds to promote social and emotional well-being for youth involved in child welfare, clarification of coverage for key evidence-based practices, such as Multisystemic Therapy (MST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Parent‑Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), and High‑Fidelity Wraparound (HFW), and the launch of Centers of Excellence to support provider training and implementation. DHCS also described efforts to align the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) assessment tool across child welfare and behavioral health systems, ensuring consistent evaluation and support. Additional updates included the rollout of High-Fidelity Wraparound as a Medi-Cal benefit, expanded eligibility and guidance for activity funds, and the development of an online portal to streamline access for eligible members and providers.
• A member praised the work DHCS has done through BH‑CONNECT and CalAIM to strengthen fidelity to evidence‑based practices, but asked how similar improvements could be extended to adolescent SUD services in the DMC‑ODS. They shared that in past work, they sustained high‑quality SUD programs only by co‑locating mental health contracts because DMC reimbursement and certification standards were too limited to support evidence‑based models. DHCS asked for clarification on co‑location, and the member explained that their facilities held both SUD and mental health contracts, allowing them to deliver FFT, MST, and other evidence‑based models, although this approach required navigating separate contracting and compliance systems. DHCS acknowledged the concern and described ongoing efforts to strengthen SUD services through CalAIM, including expanding contingency management, improving care coordination, creating more flexible pathways for DMC counties to adopt specific benefits, and growing the peer and community health worker workforce. DHCS also noted that BHSA early intervention guidance includes SUD‑related EBPs. The member added that Los Angeles County has successfully incentivized the SUD provider network but that many other counties are not making similar investments. DHCS said it is monitoring Los Angeles County’s efforts and sees future opportunities through payment reform for counties to reinvest in strengthening SUD services.
• A member shared that the BH‑CONNECT policy manual appears difficult for rural counties to implement, noting that requirements related to workforce planning and expanded staffing are unrealistic in counties with limited personnel. They emphasized that the suggestion for existing rural staff to simply take on additional responsibilities does not match on‑the‑ground capacity. DHCS acknowledged the concern and said it is mindful of the unique challenges rural counties face. DHCS explained that Centers of Excellence are available at no cost to help counties meet fidelity standards and that the BH‑CONNECT Workforce Initiative provides scholarships, recruitment and retention bonuses, and student loan repayment to bolster the behavioral health workforce statewide. The member added that Los Angeles County has made progress through deliberate financial incentives and asked whether DHCS might consider similar approaches for counties. DHCS responded that the state‑county financial structure makes statewide incentives challenging, although managed care plans can and do implement their own incentives. DHCS noted that BHSA performance measures, including those focused on SUD, can help elevate transparency and promote conversations about improvement across counties.
• A member asked how DHCS will gather input from families and youth during the rollout of HFW, and how fidelity can be maintained when rural counties lack sufficient workforce. DHCS said the goal is to set a sustainable Medi‑Cal rate and to use Full Service Partnerships to support transition‑age youth and uninsured individuals, while monitoring outcomes and working with Centers of Excellence, county behavioral health plans, and providers to meet fidelity standards. The member urged DHCS to include service recipients systematically in evaluation rather than relying primarily on grievances, noting that thousands of families have current, practical insights about barriers and what works. DHCS agreed this is important, suggested using the panel as a forum in the near term, and said DHCS will consider structuring future agendas to elevate real‑world experience alongside utilization data across programs.
• A member praised DHCS for progress in this area and said the Activity Funds benefit is a welcome support for children and youth, asking how long it would last and whether CMS would allow it to continue. The member also expressed concern that HFW is limited to ages 6 and older, noting that many children in the child welfare system are under age 6 and referencing national work that suggests adaptations for very young children are possible. DHCS responded that there are multiple EBPs available for ages 0 to 21 that can address the needs of younger children, and clarified that Activity Funds operate as a five‑year demonstration with an independent evaluation to assess outcomes and inform future decisions. DHCS added that the program is currently authorized through December 31, 2029.

Member Updates and Discussion

Type of Action: Information

Discussion Topics:

• Members discussed the possibility of drafting a letter on the May Revision and H.R. 1 implementation and raised questions about the proper procedure for developing, circulating, and approving such a letter under Bagley‑Keene requirements.
• Members noted it had been many years since the committee last issued a formal letter and asked DHCS for clarification on allowable steps, including whether any work could be done between meetings and what level of approval is required. DHCS shared general guidance based on past practice, but emphasized that formal actions must occur in a noticed public meeting, and drafting or approving a letter could not be added to the current agenda. Members discussed whether a motion could be made later in the meeting to authorize the chair to draft a letter, but DHCS clarified that the letter itself would require a future publicly noticed meeting with opportunity for public comment.
• Given the timing of the state budget process, members acknowledged that it would not be possible to act related to the current budget cycle. The group discussed possibly scheduling future meetings around key budget release dates and establishing placeholder meetings to allow timely response to emergent issues.

Public Comment

Type of Action: Public Comment

Discussion Topics:

• Divya Shiv, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, spoke about the HFW and noted that Alliance members are eager to participate alongside state and county partners. She explained that eight Alliance organizations are currently certified through the U.C. Davis portal, but remain concerned about the financial sustainability of delivering HFW, particularly if county pass‑through rates are not sufficient to hire and retain staff. Shiv also raised serious concerns about proposed May Revision cuts to ECM and Community Supports, which she described as critical components of the behavioral health continuum of care. She requested that MCHAP actively engage on ECM and Community Supports implementation considering these proposed reductions and thanked panel members for previous comments underscoring the importance of these services and mobile crisis. Shiv further noted that youth mental health programs may face significant cuts under BHSA implementation, with information from the Senate Budget Subcommittee indicating that transition‑age youth programs and local prevention efforts are at high risk of losing county funding. She emphasized that these reductions place community‑based organizations under considerable strain and will likely result in fewer mental health services for youth despite increasing needs. She urged MCHAP to engage on BHSA implementation, given its substantial implications for programs serving children and families.
• Doug Major, California Children’s Vision Coalition, raised concerns about access to children’s vision care in California, noting that the state ranks lowest nationally in children’s vision services. He referenced a recent systematic review showing that correcting untreated refractive error improves children’s educational outcomes, quality of life, and mental health indicators. Major described historical changes in eyeglass fabrication policy that led to dramatic declines in provider networks and noted that many experts and organizations have previously urged DHCS to strengthen children’s vision care. Citing ongoing unmet need observed in school screenings, he requested that children’s vision metrics be included on DHCS dashboards and referenced AB 2756, which would require public health reporting to better identify gaps in access. He emphasized that ensuring children receive needed vision care is essential to their educational success and urged continued attention to this issue.
• Jodi Langs, County Behavioral Health Directors Association, thanked DHCS for demographic data previously shared for BrightLife Kids and Soluna registrants and requested that similar information be provided for youth who receive coaching. She noted that demographic details for coaching participants, along with information on which services youth ultimately connect to after referral, would help counties understand the full trajectory from registration through engagement and community‑based follow‑up.

Upcoming MCHAP Meeting and Next Steps

Type of Action: Information

Presenter: Nancy Netherland, Chair

Discussion Topics:

• Nancy thanked members for attending the meeting.
• The next meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2026.
• MCHAP will continue to be a hybrid meeting until further notice.

Adjournment of Meeting

Name of person who adjourned the meeting: Nancy Netherland

Time Adjourned: 2 p.m.